If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:53:59 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote: "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... 2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people. In this context, I consider startup time to be an indication of XP's performance using the configuration it is in. Yes, it does depend on whatever else is starting so bad performance at startup might be misleading Although I don't disagree, in my view that "might" should be changed to "is usually," or at least "is often." but if that is acknowledged as an influence then poor performance by the startup is a possible indication of overall poor performance. Possible, yes. But often not. If overall performance *is* poor, then it should be addressed, and what you have starting automatically should certainly be looked at as a possible cause of poor performance. But it's wrong to assume that slow startup automatically means poor general performance. I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down everything else, but that's not always (maybe not even usually) the case. That's why my standard newsgroup post on slow startup includes the sentence "Assuming that the computer's speed is otherwise satisfactory, it may not be worth worrying about." My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it automatically. Starting all those programs automatically makes a very slow startup, but after startup, my performance is just fine. Definitely if the poor performance only occurs during startup then most people could live with that. Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Daave" wrote in message
... 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this. I don't understand how Commit Charge figures are relevant. See the following article; it's description of the Commit Charge figures does not indicate a relevance. The Memory Shell Game http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...hell-game.aspx |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
... I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down everything else I don't. If anything I said indicates otherwise then I was not clear. My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it automatically. That's great if the system can do all that without the multiple processes causing paging that would not occur when there is less for the system to do. If there is a lot of paging (thrashing) caused by Windows trying to do so much that it is forced to do a lot of physical paging (hard faults) that it would not need to do with a lighter workload then it would be reasonable to reduce the workload during startup. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
Caffeine does not alleviate slow startups. Slow startup are annoying no
matter how much caffeine is ingested. "Bill Sharpe" wrote in message ... Unknown wrote: That of course is YOU personally. I power up my computer AFTER coffee and a long bootup time is annoying. Geez, have a second cup of coffee and relax... Bill |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Daave" wrote in message ... 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this. I don't understand how Commit Charge figures are relevant. See the following article; it's description of the Commit Charge figures does not indicate a relevance. The Memory Shell Game http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...hell-game.aspx This is my understanding: If the peak level is less than the amount of RAM, the PC doesn't need to use the pagefile (therefore, performance is at optimal level). I believe that article was addressing whenever the commit charge is *higher* than the amount of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one might expect, depending on whether or not I/O is kept to a minimum. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:39:55 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote: "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down everything else I don't. If anything I said indicates otherwise then I was not clear. Sorry--no, I didn't think you did. I was pointing that others do, and that's why I so often stress that a slow startup, in and of itself, is not necessarily a problem, and for many people often isn't. My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it automatically. That's great if the system can do all that without the multiple processes causing paging that would not occur when there is less for the system to do. If there is a lot of paging (thrashing) caused by Windows trying to do so much that it is forced to do a lot of physical paging (hard faults) that it would not need to do with a lighter workload then it would be reasonable to reduce the workload during startup. Again, the thrashing would occur if several of the programs are in simultaneous use. Since I keep all these loaded because I use one or the other frequently throughout the day, but hardly ever use multiples at the same time, they don't compete with each other for RAM, and thrashing is not an issue. Performance is fine. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Daave" wrote in message
... Sam Hobbs wrote: "Daave" wrote in message ... 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this. I don't understand how Commit Charge figures are relevant. See the following article; it's description of the Commit Charge figures does not indicate a relevance. The Memory Shell Game http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...hell-game.aspx This is my understanding: If the peak level is less than the amount of RAM, the PC doesn't need to use the pagefile (therefore, performance is at optimal level). I believe that article was addressing whenever the commit charge is *higher* than the amount of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one might expect, depending on whether or not I/O is kept to a minimum. Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile is not needed. The assumption is that physical memory is often not adequate, however processes usually have some memory that is used so rarely that it is efficient to page out the memory that is rarely used. If however there is enough physical memory then it still is not necessary to page anything out. If that is the case then there is no need to discuss anything here; anyone with sufficient main memory can ignore this. The problem is when there is such an inadequate supply of main memory that there are performance problems due to that problem. Yes, it is true that "whenever the commit charge is *higher* than the amount of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one might expect" but it is also true that the amount of thrashing might be higher than one might expect; both situations are possible and the commit charge does not indicate which is true. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
... Again, the thrashing would occur if several of the programs are in simultaneous use. Since I keep all these loaded because I use one or the other frequently throughout the day, but hardly ever use multiples at the same time, they don't compete with each other for RAM, and thrashing is not an issue. Performance is fine. I was referring to loading startup with many things to do during startup. During startup, the programs will likely execute simultaneously with other programs. This automatic execution of multiple processes could choke main memory more than at any other time and therefore a limited amount of main memory could force use of virtual storage. If multiple processes compete for main memory during the unusual startup environment that occurs during startup then they might require more time than if they executed at a less resource-intensive time. I am speaking theoretically; I assume it does not apply to your system. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Daave" wrote in message ... Sam Hobbs wrote: "Daave" wrote in message ... 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this. I don't understand how Commit Charge figures are relevant. See the following article; it's description of the Commit Charge figures does not indicate a relevance. The Memory Shell Game http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/ar...hell-game.aspx This is my understanding: If the peak level is less than the amount of RAM, the PC doesn't need to use the pagefile (therefore, performance is at optimal level). I believe that article was addressing whenever the commit charge is *higher* than the amount of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one might expect, depending on whether or not I/O is kept to a minimum. Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile is not needed. The assumption is that physical memory is often not adequate, however processes usually have some memory that is used so rarely that it is efficient to page out the memory that is rarely used. If however there is enough physical memory then it still is not necessary to page anything out. If that is the case then there is no need to discuss anything here; anyone with sufficient main memory can ignore this. That is the case. :-) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:59:19 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote: Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile is not needed. Nope, that isn't true. Applications often pre-allocate memory for *potential* use, and in many cases, that potential use never becomes actual use. Those allocations normally get paged out very quickly because they are not in use, but if there is no page file they have to stay in real memory. The result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it. Add to that that there is *no* advantage to not having a page file (except for saving a tiny amount of disk space) and it's clear that it should never to turned off. For more information, read "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" by the late MVP Alex Nichol at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:08:38 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote: "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... Again, the thrashing would occur if several of the programs are in simultaneous use. Since I keep all these loaded because I use one or the other frequently throughout the day, but hardly ever use multiples at the same time, they don't compete with each other for RAM, and thrashing is not an issue. Performance is fine. I was referring to loading startup with many things to do during startup. During startup, the programs will likely execute simultaneously with other programs. This automatic execution of multiple processes could choke main memory more than at any other time and therefore a limited amount of main memory could force use of virtual storage. If multiple processes compete for main memory during the unusual startup environment that occurs during startup then they might require more time than if they executed at a less resource-intensive time. I am speaking theoretically; I assume it does not apply to your system. Well, I'm not absolutely sure I completely understand you, but if you are saying that competition for real memory, and consequent thrashing, occurs while the programs are being loaded at startup, yes that's true, and I agree. I'm sure it does apply to my system, and that's part of the reason that my startup is slow. But as I said, I start up very seldom, and I don't mind its being slow, since performance is otherwise fine. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:59:19 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" wrote: Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile is not needed. Nope, that isn't true. Applications often pre-allocate memory for *potential* use, and in many cases, that potential use never becomes actual use. Those allocations normally get paged out very quickly because they are not in use, but if there is no page file they have to stay in real memory. The result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it. Add to that that there is *no* advantage to not having a page file (except for saving a tiny amount of disk space) and it's clear that it should never to turned off. For more information, read "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" by the late MVP Alex Nichol at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"? As for "they have to stay in real memory", staying in real memory is ideal. It is foolish to force Windows to swap anything to the pagefile if there is enough real memory to satisfy all memory requirements for all processes executing in a system. The article says "the optimisation implied by this has been found not to justify the overhead, and normally there is only a single page file in the first instance". The author does not understand the value of using multiple physical drives for pagefiles. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:14:00 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote: "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:59:19 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" wrote: Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile is not needed. Nope, that isn't true. Applications often pre-allocate memory for *potential* use, and in many cases, that potential use never becomes actual use. Those allocations normally get paged out very quickly because they are not in use, but if there is no page file they have to stay in real memory. The result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it. Add to that that there is *no* advantage to not having a page file (except for saving a tiny amount of disk space) and it's clear that it should never to turned off. For more information, read "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" by the late MVP Alex Nichol at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"? "Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it" As for "they have to stay in real memory", staying in real memory is ideal. It is foolish to force Windows to swap anything to the pagefile if there is enough real memory to satisfy all memory requirements for all processes executing in a system. No. We are talking here about allocations that will probably never be used. What you say is true only for what is used. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
... On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:14:00 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" wrote: What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"? "Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use - the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it" That is too vague for me to be sure and I don't trust the accuracy. Let's leave this to be judged by each person. You can help everyone by finding something more reliable; maybe I will. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Installing XP
Sam Hobbs wrote:
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:14:00 -0800, "Sam Hobbs" wrote: What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result is that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"? "Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use - the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it" That is too vague for me to be sure and I don't trust the accuracy. Let's leave this to be judged by each person. You can help everyone by finding something more reliable; maybe I will. Accidently launch an extra copy of a drawing program and POOF! you are out of memory. There is NEVER "enough" RAM to run 1 each of all your programs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|